Very interesting. Thanks for sharing it. I've also been studying mind and the brain for a while, so I understand the brain-personality connection.
As far as I am concerned, our job is deceptively simple. Know yourself and know your environment as it truly is and do what comes naturally. There should be no effort necessary to do what is ingrained your nature.
So when you say:
many of the noblest aspects of human nature -- altruism, love, courage, and creativity -- are rooted in brain systems so ancient that we share them with insects, and these systems form the basis as well of some of our darkest destructive traits. The authors also overturn popular views of how brains develop. We're not the simple product of animal urges, "selfish" genes, or nature versus nurture. We survive by creating an ingenious web of ideas for making sense of our world -- a symbolic reality called culture. This we endow to later generations as our blueprint for survival.
We are in perfect agreement. From my way of thinking, until an extreme external shock forces me to override these ingrained blueprints of survival, they form the basis of how the world truly is.
Such view does not negate existence of an absolute truth. To the contrary, having a manifested itself in our genes, this is evidence for the true way (or natural way, or God given way, etc) to live. Neither does such matters negate religions as a whole or disprove the existence of God.
Again the point being there are alternatives to religion in understanding ourselves and environment, by showing physical places where memory or emotions are stored, the myths are exposed for what they are - wonderful imaginative process trying to make sense of this wonderful place -- not good or bad - just myths......and maybe we can build on a more solid and universal base as humanity rather than fractured groups clinging on beliefs.
We are much closer than not. Perhaps we are saying the same thing differently. I get the feeling that you and I may be using the word religion in different contexts. To me, a religion does not necessarily mean Heaven and Hell and a Prophet. Most people consider Buddhism a religion and it has none of these. The modern science and the belief in it is not unlike a religion. Observe two scientists feverously debating an issue for which neither one has sufficient proof. Better yet, observe a scientist debating that we are nothing more than bio-chemical machines. Such debates are no different than any religious debate.
But ultimately, it does not matter. I have argued in the past that the truth of various religions or even the existence of God is immaterial so long as you can "filter" out the noise in your perception of the universe and your perception of yourself. When you are true to your true nature and you perceive the world accurately, you are closest to your god (whatever it may be, including a non-existent one). All the roads merge when this is the chosen direction.
In effect, various religions have tried to make this road towards the ultimate truth easy by laying out the rules and guidelines. But this does not mean you cannot solve the "problem" using the "first principles" if you are so inclined. One of the main reasons why I admire Buddhism has to do with its emphasis on experiencing the truth for oneself and being true to oneself.
When religion became organized, the very system (organization) wants to survive and in anyway, even if detrimental to the person.
I agree completely. It is in fact interesting that during Buddha's own life, twice he had to fight organized "Buddhism". It has gone downhill since. Still, enough of Buddha's opposition has remained that many (all?) Buddhist schools are willing to admit there is a point after which you have to stop clinging to orthodox Buddhism and step beyond religion. Believe me, I despise organized Buddhism almost as much as any other organized religion.
Perhaps you can elaborate on your final paragraph when you have time.
Sun Tzu |
